Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Topic closed!!!
Subject: »NEWS AROUND THE WORLD
whoeverer thinks taxation is theft always forget that all you have is your because of the state.
Without it you can't even produce an income properly..
Liberism is simply a ridiculos theory that you learn at school, but is useless in reality. In fact it were never followed in no country in the intere history.
I can discuss with people that think state must tax more or less, if they give a balanced opinion of benefits/prices of their purpose, but I think it's a loss of times discussing with someone that ideologically think: "to tax is wrong" without any good analysis of what to tax and why he thinks so.
Without it you can't even produce an income properly..
Liberism is simply a ridiculos theory that you learn at school, but is useless in reality. In fact it were never followed in no country in the intere history.
I can discuss with people that think state must tax more or less, if they give a balanced opinion of benefits/prices of their purpose, but I think it's a loss of times discussing with someone that ideologically think: "to tax is wrong" without any good analysis of what to tax and why he thinks so.
Liberism is simply a ridiculos theory that you learn at school, but is useless in reality. In fact it were never followed in no country in the intere history.
And what is that supposed to prove?
Libertinism (I don't know if you mean liberalism or libertinism by 'liberism'.) is ridiculous because there are no basic human rights in libertinism.
Liberalism (in its pure form) has never been used because politicians tend to like power. Therefore, they certainly do not like liberalism.
Really, what's your point here?
I can discuss with people that think state must tax more or less, if they give a balanced opinion of benefits/prices of their purpose, but I think it's a loss of times discussing with someone that ideologically think: "to tax is wrong" without any good analysis of what to tax and why he thinks so.
I never said 'tax is wrong'. I say 'taxation for non-public goods is wrong'. Get your facts straight. You don't understand a word of what I'm saying, or (worse) you deliberately change my words and which such a person, I can't discuss with. So what is it, don't you understand me or won't you understand me?
And what is that supposed to prove?
Libertinism (I don't know if you mean liberalism or libertinism by 'liberism'.) is ridiculous because there are no basic human rights in libertinism.
Liberalism (in its pure form) has never been used because politicians tend to like power. Therefore, they certainly do not like liberalism.
Really, what's your point here?
I can discuss with people that think state must tax more or less, if they give a balanced opinion of benefits/prices of their purpose, but I think it's a loss of times discussing with someone that ideologically think: "to tax is wrong" without any good analysis of what to tax and why he thinks so.
I never said 'tax is wrong'. I say 'taxation for non-public goods is wrong'. Get your facts straight. You don't understand a word of what I'm saying, or (worse) you deliberately change my words and which such a person, I can't discuss with. So what is it, don't you understand me or won't you understand me?
Now it looks like the spam topic! :/
same opinion, why are you spaming here. People usually post something here, when it is news around the world. Can you choose better topic please !
same opinion, why are you spaming here. People usually post something here, when it is news around the world. Can you choose better topic please !
We can have a discussion or talk about things based on news around the world, posting 5 times the same 'This is NEWS AROUND THE WORLD' is spam and has nothing to do with news around the world.
why you are so stubborned ?
People read this when something happens and have short discussion. For longer discussion usually goes to another topic.
Yes, your discussion is spam and has nothing to do with news around the world. Try to understand it, I strongly believe you are smart boy!
People read this when something happens and have short discussion. For longer discussion usually goes to another topic.
Yes, your discussion is spam and has nothing to do with news around the world. Try to understand it, I strongly believe you are smart boy!
I say 'taxation for non-public goods is wrong'.
the point is you don't say why having (f. example) public hospitals is wrong.
you say only it's wrong, without any analisys of who gain or lose something and what are the benefits/costs of both choices.
About liberism, and liberalism, the only thing I want to say it's that those are utopias.
the point is you don't say why having (f. example) public hospitals is wrong.
you say only it's wrong, without any analisys of who gain or lose something and what are the benefits/costs of both choices.
About liberism, and liberalism, the only thing I want to say it's that those are utopias.
the point is you don't say why having (f. example) public hospitals is wrong.
I have, actually. Because I don't think you should force people to buy certain private goods / services. And so they most certainly shouldn't pay for private goods / services they're not buying. And therefore, they should not pay a tax in order to pay for those private goods / services.
you say only it's wrong, without any analisys of who gain or lose something and what are the benefits/costs of both choices.
For the 37th time: I simply don't care who gains or loses.
About liberism, and liberalism, the only thing I want to say it's that those are utopias.
Well, it seems like liberism is an Italian term, so you can't blame me for not knowing it, I thought you meant libertinism (which is very different from liberalism, libertarianism or liberism). Well, from what I've read on that Wiki-page, I am in favor of liberism (Austrian school of economics).
(edited)
I have, actually. Because I don't think you should force people to buy certain private goods / services. And so they most certainly shouldn't pay for private goods / services they're not buying. And therefore, they should not pay a tax in order to pay for those private goods / services.
you say only it's wrong, without any analisys of who gain or lose something and what are the benefits/costs of both choices.
For the 37th time: I simply don't care who gains or loses.
About liberism, and liberalism, the only thing I want to say it's that those are utopias.
Well, it seems like liberism is an Italian term, so you can't blame me for not knowing it, I thought you meant libertinism (which is very different from liberalism, libertarianism or liberism). Well, from what I've read on that Wiki-page, I am in favor of liberism (Austrian school of economics).
(edited)
I have, actually. Because I don't think you should force people to buy certain private goods / services.
ehm , WHY?
And so they most certainly shouldn't pay for private goods / services they're not buying.
WHY?
And therefore, they should not pay a tax in order to pay for those private goods / services.
WHY?
For the 37th time: I simply don't care who gains or loses.
You don't care? what value has a proposal without arguments?
And about benefits/costs?
WHY should we listen to your idea?
I think you are kidding us! You are saying "I think we must do X",
we ask why (what benefits you proposal realize)
and you answer: "because X is to be done"..
We're not going so far..
ehm , WHY?
And so they most certainly shouldn't pay for private goods / services they're not buying.
WHY?
And therefore, they should not pay a tax in order to pay for those private goods / services.
WHY?
For the 37th time: I simply don't care who gains or loses.
You don't care? what value has a proposal without arguments?
And about benefits/costs?
WHY should we listen to your idea?
I think you are kidding us! You are saying "I think we must do X",
we ask why (what benefits you proposal realize)
and you answer: "because X is to be done"..
We're not going so far..
ehm , WHY?
Because the freedom to buy the goods one desires seems like a freedom I like. I want to chose what I buy, just like you should be able to buy what you'd like (with the money that is available to us of course). The state shouldn't decide in my place what private goods I should buy. I can make that choice myself.
WHY?
Buying = paying. Not buying = not paying. Simple logic.
WHY?
See above.
You don't care? what value has a proposal without arguments?
And about benefits/costs?
The argumentation is that every person should be free to decide what private goods he wants to buy and should pay only for those private goods he buys. You can think that's poor argumentation, I beg to differ.
Benefits / costs: well, taxes would drop to a very low percentage, expenses by the state would drop to a minimum (just the costs of the public goods; certain public goods can even be produced by private companies).
WHY should we listen to your idea?
Dunno. It's your choice to listen to me. I'm not forcing you to do so.
Because the freedom to buy the goods one desires seems like a freedom I like. I want to chose what I buy, just like you should be able to buy what you'd like (with the money that is available to us of course). The state shouldn't decide in my place what private goods I should buy. I can make that choice myself.
WHY?
Buying = paying. Not buying = not paying. Simple logic.
WHY?
See above.
You don't care? what value has a proposal without arguments?
And about benefits/costs?
The argumentation is that every person should be free to decide what private goods he wants to buy and should pay only for those private goods he buys. You can think that's poor argumentation, I beg to differ.
Benefits / costs: well, taxes would drop to a very low percentage, expenses by the state would drop to a minimum (just the costs of the public goods; certain public goods can even be produced by private companies).
WHY should we listen to your idea?
Dunno. It's your choice to listen to me. I'm not forcing you to do so.
Because the freedom to buy the goods one desires seems like a freedom I like.
Ok, finally a partial answer.
I don't agree, 'cause I think benefits that comes from a "welfare" state is much bigger for everyone than the freedom to decide (btw: who will decide not to cure himself..?) and the global price you pay in the end is inferior.
The argumentation is that every person should be free to decide what private goods he wants to buy and should pay only for those private goods he buys. You can think that's poor argumentation, I beg to differ.
Benefits / costs: well, taxes would drop to a very low percentage, expenses by the state would drop to a minimum (just the costs of the public goods; certain public goods can even be produced by private companies).
I think this is a partial answer because you don't do the comparation of costs and benefits of both proposals.
I think this:
1-some thing must be public because of profit logic doesn't fit them (f.e. army, sanitary cures, police)
2-some thing can be public or private, but need a strong regulation (f.e. public services as energy, water, transports) because market logic without regulation fail to realize a satisfactory situation
3-some things must be left free at market logic, regulated only on profit searching of people (everything else that there's no motivation to regulate in another way)
What to put in 1, 2 or 3?
that's the question!
Every case must be evalutated, analizing benefits/costs balance (but doing it right).
Let's do an example: free vaccinations for kids.
You will say: "I won't pay for someone else's kid vaccination!"
but do you realize that your kid will go at school with a not vaccinated guy at his side?
Do you think that the cost you'll pay as society when a not vaccinated man get hill and stay at home from work for weeks is comparable?
I can do a lot of examples like this, I think that an ideological view on things are unavoidable, but we must always remember common sense, before proclaiming "truths" that are valid only in theory!
Ok, finally a partial answer.
I don't agree, 'cause I think benefits that comes from a "welfare" state is much bigger for everyone than the freedom to decide (btw: who will decide not to cure himself..?) and the global price you pay in the end is inferior.
The argumentation is that every person should be free to decide what private goods he wants to buy and should pay only for those private goods he buys. You can think that's poor argumentation, I beg to differ.
Benefits / costs: well, taxes would drop to a very low percentage, expenses by the state would drop to a minimum (just the costs of the public goods; certain public goods can even be produced by private companies).
I think this is a partial answer because you don't do the comparation of costs and benefits of both proposals.
I think this:
1-some thing must be public because of profit logic doesn't fit them (f.e. army, sanitary cures, police)
2-some thing can be public or private, but need a strong regulation (f.e. public services as energy, water, transports) because market logic without regulation fail to realize a satisfactory situation
3-some things must be left free at market logic, regulated only on profit searching of people (everything else that there's no motivation to regulate in another way)
What to put in 1, 2 or 3?
that's the question!
Every case must be evalutated, analizing benefits/costs balance (but doing it right).
Let's do an example: free vaccinations for kids.
You will say: "I won't pay for someone else's kid vaccination!"
but do you realize that your kid will go at school with a not vaccinated guy at his side?
Do you think that the cost you'll pay as society when a not vaccinated man get hill and stay at home from work for weeks is comparable?
I can do a lot of examples like this, I think that an ideological view on things are unavoidable, but we must always remember common sense, before proclaiming "truths" that are valid only in theory!